The ESPN myth

I've seen a lot negative press lately, such as this piece from Time, about the NHL's television partnership with Versus.

Hey it's that time of year right? Time to dust off the NHL ratings stink stories, change the dates and hit the recycle button.

Of course it's some ole nonsense such as "nobody can find the channel"... "a move back to ESPN would cure all the NHL's exposure problems"... "Versus footprint is too small"... yada yada yada..

Let me make this as clear as I possibly can -- the NHL moving to ESPN to increase it's "exposure" is the biggest myth going in all of sports.

Here's a newsflash folks. The NHL's rating on ESPN, even in the so called "glory years" of the early 90s, were crap compared to the NFL/MLB/NBA. The NHL's TV ratings have always been crap next to those leagues regardless of who the broadcast partner was/is.

..and despite what some of the talking heads would like you all to think.. the NHL on Versus is not doing nearly as bad as they say.

Want proof? Here is an example via an article published by Variety from this year's playoffs:

With two of the rising stars in the league facing each other, last week's game three of the series earned a record-high 1.49 million viewers for the network, becoming the most-watched second-round hockey game since 2002, when ESPN had rights to the NHL.

Whaaa? How can that be when nobody can find the channel? Again..welcome to the myth.

Here are some more numbers for you courtesy of Andrewstarspage.com:

Currently Versus is out drawing what the NHL previously had on ESPN2 and despite a smaller footprint is only .18, give or take, behind ESPN's ratings.

Again... how can that be? I mean without extensive highlights on Sportscenter how can any league survive?

The myth continues.

As you can see the ratings aren't nearly as bad as some would make you believe when compared to the past NHL ratings. Of course when you compare to other leagues they look bad.. but that has never changed regardless of carrier.

..on a side note, coming out of the lockout ESPN told the league it would only broadcast their games on ESPN2 on a revenue sharing deal. So next to ESPN2 Versus is doing really well. The goal of course is to continue to grow and beat the numbers at ESPN which the gap is certainly closing.

ESPN = been there, done that for the NHL.

The broadcast partner is not the issue here. Versus is doing a fine job in terms of promoting the NHL, treating it well and growing their network and ratings.

Would I like a bigger footprint..? Of course. Would I like a higher profile..? Of course. I'm a realist however who understands where the league came from, where it's at and where they are trying to go.

As they say, Rome was not built in a night and Versus isn't going to become ESPN in 4 years ....and going back to ESPN, a channel that treated the league like dog food and has become too bloated and too cocky for it's own good, is no magic wand to grow the league or it's ratings.

I want hockey to grow it's viewership like the rest of ya. However I view the challenge to grow it much different than footprints and channel surfing. The problem is and has always been that the game just doesn't translate well on TV and that is what really needs addressed here.

We die hards... well, just show us something frozen with nets and we'll watch. The problem is attracting the casual viewers.

The solution? Make the game as fun to watch on TV as it is to attend in person and now we are on to something.

Easy for me to say.

Ask yourself this question? Why is football so great to watch on TV? Hockey has a lot of the same elements in speed, finesse, roles, energy, high impact collisions, passion and drama so what gives?

Is it because everybody has played football? Well not everyone plays golf and it's ratings are good. Not everyone drives a taxi cab at 180+ mile per hour and those ratings are good.

While maybe a part of it, I think it's much more than that.

For one it's event viewing and two it's a very well structured game.

For instance the way the game of football is designed lends itself perfectly to the tube. It's very structured and roles very well defined -- this is offense and this is defense -- one tries to score one tries to stop them. The stoppages between plays allow for multiple replays, breakdowns and of course commercials! Also the stars don't leave the field so they are easily followed. The biggest thing to me, however, is that the camera is able to capture just about all the action in it's frame so the viewer sees most, if not everything, that is going on. You see plays develop and/or breakdown. It's all right there in your living room.

Not so in hockey.

Hockey is not nearly as structured nor the roles as easily defined. It's very fast paced and the game is the only one that allows substitutions in-play most of which are not captured on camera so it's difficult to some to track the stars. The game is also unpredictable in its stoppages and replays are random and unstructured. The biggest problem is that the television does not capture enough of the play compared to what you see live. Rarely do you see plays develop or breakdown.

For instance, how often do you hear this at home while viewing a game....

Nash was wide open up the ice...why didn't Tyutin hit him?

Watch Datsyuk who is trying to receive a home run pass!

Nash is doggin it on the backcheck!

You don't hear it because 9 times out of 10 you can't see it... unless your actually there at the game!

Rarely do you see an on the fly line change and viewers are left saying why did he just dump the puck like that? It all looks like disorganized chaos to a casual viewer. Yet if you bring that same viewer to the game live it all makes a lot more sense as they see the whole pallet and can paint their own picture and it's light bulb time... he dumped the puck because he went to the bench and got a line change.

We all know the problems.. heck problems are easy to point out when it comes to hockey and TV.. The hard part is figuring out a solution or at the very least improvements.

So how to make it better?

In my opinion the NHL, its' fans and critics should be focusing on new technologies to advance the game's broadcast on TV instead of thinkin that a move to ESPN will magically change anything.

Right now they have a very willing partner in Versus with deep pockets who wants to grow their brand and they know that having the NHL as one of it's properties is a way to get there. Both entities need to combine forces and resources to develop new techniques and technologies to broadcast games.

Some steps are being taken.

High definition is a step in the right directing as it's a clean and crisper viewing experience and you can see more of the ice but 1. there aren't enough games televised in HD (right Blue Jackets?) 2. there aren't enough folks who have HD TVs and 3. the technology is not being maximized.

The Winter Classic is a huge leap forward as it finally provides the NHL with a marquee "event" to attract audiences during it's long regular season.

Other innovations like broadcaster's between benches is a nice step and in game interviews with coaches brings you closer to the action. All good but more is needed.

..but what about the actual viewing angles? We've seen rail cams, net cams, helmet cams and behind the net stationary cam used with mixed results. That's okay... you usually have to fail before you find success but the key is to keep trying to innovate.

I've always wondered why the NHL and it's partners do not explore broadcasting games the way they are displayed in video games? Which is a north-south viewing experience versus an east-west style.

Hockey video games are one of the most popular sports games going. Heck last year's EA Sports NHL08 was rated the year's best video game buy many publications.

Yet no complaints about following the action or seeing the puck in those.

Yes I know video games are a charged up version of the real thing but there are elements that can be utilized.

For one there is a big reason the games are all played north-south. You can see a heck of a lot more of the ice and watch plays develop. It's also a lot easier to follow the line changes for the same reason.

Of course programming a game north/south and broadcasting one are two different animals. This is where innovation and new technologies come into play. Certainly the technology is available to mount some kind of mobile camera over the ice that can move north/south with the action. Yes it would be expensive initially but once the technology is vetted out the price will certainly come down.

It may not work but why not try? Quite frankly I haven't seen anything new tried in this area over the past couple of seasons. Inexcusable if you ask me.

Or what about split screens? Or select a cam views... integrating the TV broadcast with internet streams. So many areas to explore.

The key is to continue to innovate and do everything you can to improve your product both on and off the ice. Think non-traditionally.

The league will probably never reach the heights of football in this country... and you know what, that's okay. As I always tell folks there can only be one #1 but does that mean that #4 stinks? For instance does the #4 grossing movie last week stink? What about the #4 selling album?

This is multi-billion dollar league folks that operates 30 teams in multi-million dollar stadiums across two countries. Some folks pushing their own agendas try to downplay that with the only hammer they have in TV ratings but it's a worn out and recycled story that is more powderpuff than powerplay.

Is there a compromise to be had in that maybe the league can broadcast games on both Versus and ESPN? Perhaps. However I'm one fan who will not be expecting much, if any changes to the NHL's placement in the sports landscape just because ESPN is brought back into the fold. Ratings history has clearly shown us otherwise.

Fire-away - do you believe a move to ESPN would increase the league's exposure?

-LTL